About this Show

Studio B With Shepard Smith

News/Business. Shepard Smith. Shepard Smith reports on the days top news stories. New. (CC)

NETWORK

DURATION
01:01:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel v760

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
1280

PIXEL HEIGHT
720

TOPIC FREQUENCY

Benghazi 18, Cia 12, Us 7, Cleveland 5, Washington 5, Angie 5, Abc 4, Texas 4, Libya 4, Osha 3, Susan Rice 3, U.s. 3, United States 3, Chris Wallace 3, Michelle 3, The Cia 2, Fbi 2, Mccain 2, John Brennan 2, Walter Reed 2,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  FOX News    Studio B With Shepard Smith    News/Business. Shepard Smith. Shepard Smith  
   reports on the days top news stories. New. (CC)  

    May 10, 2013
    12:00 - 1:01pm PDT  

12:00pm
exhibit? new york city featuring sclupted babies in chains. it's a comment on the impact our nation's debt is having on our children. some found it too controversial to display or too on point. thanks for watching. "studio b" starts right now. >> in the eye of the beholder. the news begins anew here. big developments after the massive and deadly explosion at a fertilizer plant in west, texas, and now officials set to launch a criminal investigation into that blast. for the white house and the state department, edits to the talking points on the terror attack in benghazi, libya may have been a lot more extensive than we previously thought. we'll talk with chris wallace coming up. >> plus, an incredible survival
12:01pm
story. more than two weeks after the deadly collapse of a factory in bangladesh, workers heard a voice calling out from the rubble, a woman still alive. that all ahead, unless breaking news changes everything on studio b. we begin with texas. authorities there say they are now set to launch a criminal investigation into last month's deadly fertilizer plant explosion south of dallas. a blast which killed 14 people, injured some 200 others, and blew up with the force of a small earthquake. [explosion] >> that explosion flattened several square blocks around the plant. there you see the damage. destroys homes and schools, blowing out windows. investigators determined that a fertilizing chemical, ammonium
12:02pm
nitrate, was to blame. the same stuff the bombers used in oklahoma city. but the investigators say they don't know why the plant caught fire and then exploded, and that brings us to the new twist. this morning we learned that authorities also arrested a paramedic who responded to the scene on charges of possessing an explosive device, and feds announce he had a pipe bomb. it's still unclear where l he i- whether he his connected to the explosion but the timing is peculiar and curious. william joins us now with more. >> well, right now, greg, prosecutors are not connecting the dots. they're not calling this man a suspect. nor are they, however, disspelling any of the speculation in texas as to the connection to the blast. here's what we do know. bryce reed was an incident commander at the fertilizer fire. he lost his best friend in the explosion. he spoke at the memorial
12:03pm
service. at 2:00 this morning, federal agents -- not local -- took him into custody for possessing an explosive device. just hours ago, the texas department of public safety said the cause of the explosion was under criminal investigation. that is new. as a first responder, reed was assigned to one side of the fire. his best friend, cyrus, was assigned to the other. he died in the blast along with five of reed's coworkers. after the explosion he was shown as a brave and sympathetic figure. here he is speaking at his friend's memorial. >> he always hated the term hero. he and i shared the belief that heroes are persons etched in marble and that a hero is a sacred and solum term reserved for only those who paid the ultimate practices pryce when others would falter or run. my brother with woo disagree but i believe that all privy to this incident can attest that my
12:04pm
brother, and all those who lay with him, are heroes now and forever. >> so two hours ago, reed was arraigned in federal court for possessing the pipe bomb. no one has alleged he caused the fire that led to the blast. there's no evidence connecting him to the blast and family members told the paper there is, quote, no chance he was involved. his arrest, however, up until now, has been sealed. and the fire is under criminal investigation. >> with us now to help break down the investigation, retired fbi special agent, christopher voss. a terrorist expert. the timing is very weird because three weeks go by and now suddenly there is a criminal investigation simultaneous with the arrest of the paramedic. what do you make of this? >> well, first of all, as an
12:05pm
investigator, the first thing is there's no such thing as a coincidence. you don't believe in coincidences until you have ruled everything else out. so, the coincidencal nature of this does appear like it doesn't make sense. now, the question is, how do they find out that mr. reed is in possession of a pipe bomb and why were they looking in the first place? they would have had enough time to look at the scene of the blast to try to isolate the origin of the explosion. when they isolate the origin, they're going to begin to look for what is it that sparked it. what was the initiating device if there was one that started this off. so probably found something which caused them to begin to look around to see where the initiator came from. >> the ammonium nitrate caused the enormous explosion and death. they still don't know the original cause of the fire and then the blast that was the trigger of that.
12:06pm
given the footprint of damage and destruction and so forth, it just seems impossible to me that they could find any trace evidence of the >> well, one of the things about a moanum nitrate explosions, it's a slower moving explosion, which means a lot of things remained intact. they're not shattered with the explosion. they're torn apart, spread over a wide area, but largely intact and there's a lot of good evidence left behind, so, there would be a lot to find. >> the last inspection of this particular plant was almost 30 years ago by osha. they found two very serious violations. 30 years? three decades was the last osha inspection? how can that be? >> well, that makes you wonder as well, but it's difficult to cast any sort of aspersions on it because i know they could have been -- they could have been sloppy or taken safety
12:07pm
seriously and been doing a much better job of keeping it a safer place. the only thing you know that's a really long time and you don't know what to make of that. >> there are 700 of this fertilizer depots in the state of texas, which was the sight of the worst explosion, 600 people died in that one. given that track record, you think osha would be all over this place. christopher voss, thanks for being with us. >> my pleasure, greg. thank you for having me. >> a live look outside the white house right now where it appears a woman in front of the white house has chained herself to the fence. yeah. appears cops are in the process of trying to remove her. we're told the protest might be connected to her disapproval of guantanamo bay, where terrorist suspects are being held still. our producer on the scene says this small protest, just a handful of people.
12:08pm
the plot thickens on the terror attack in benghazi which killed four americans, including the u.s. ambassador there. abc news reporting it has seen white house e-mails about the attack and says the e-mails were obama administration talking points which the un ambassador susan rice helped deliver to the world. abc news also reporting there are 12 -- count them -- 12 different versions of the talking points and edits. they were edits extensively. of course, this week, lawmakers held hearings on capitol hill about the attack. the republicans' main question, could the administration have sent backup to assist the diplomatic teams in libya and there is a coverup of those events? james rosen is live from washington, dc with more. hi, james. >> greg, good afternoon. the abc news report you mentioned builds on reporting of the weekly standard, and an early cia draft of these talking points stated, and i quote, the agency has produced anymore rouse pieces on the threat of
12:09pm
extremist links to al qaeda in benghazi in eastern libya. there have been at laos five other attacks against foreign interests in benghazi including the june attack against the british ambassador's convoy. all that raised red flags for state department spokeswoman victoria newland who dashed off an e-mail to her enter agency colleagues saying, quote, the early cia draft could be abused by members of congress to beat up the state department. so why would we want to feed that? concerned, unquote. when the revised talking points still included links to one group, she sent off another e-mail warning we don't want to prejudice the investigation. however, an as yet unidentified national security council told newland the fbi did not have major concerns with the points
12:10pm
and offered only a couple mineor suggestions. >> the back and forth between us and the cia in this regard. public affairs officer or spokes people are negotiating. sometimes we make reference to other individuals or policymakers. so that's the context i can provide in general terms howl we operate. and we very frequently have discussions -- >> that was explaining who newland might have had in mind when in her e-mails chev made reference to my building's leadership, and then petraeus expressed frustration at the scrubbing of his agency's initial product. >> james rosen in washington. thanks. we're going to have a lot more on that report and the reaction in washington when we speak with
12:11pm
chris wallace, coming up later on. investigators say a group of thieves managed to steal tens of millions of dollars from banks in a matter of hours. these guys are showing awful a tine from fraction of the overall take. we'll explain how they managed to'll it off. one of the women held captive in the cleveland home left the hospital, and prosecutorses say hey may have to try or may try her alleged captor for murder and put him to death. coming up. [ male announcer ] running out of steam? ♪ now you can give yourself a kick in the rear! v8 v-fusion plus energy. natural energy from green tea plus fruits and veggies.
12:12pm
need a little kick? ooh! could've had a v8. in the juice aisle. peoi go to angie's listt for to gauge whether or not need a little kick? ooh! the projects will be done in a timely fashion and within budget. angie's list members can tell you which provider is the best in town. you'll find reviews on everything from home repair to healthcare. now that we're expecting, i like the fact that i can go onto angie's list and look for pediatricians. the service providers that i've found on angie's list actually have blown me away. join today and find out
12:13pm
why over 1 million members count on angie's list. angie's list -- reviews you can trust.
12:14pm
>> greg: seven suspects in new york under arrest for alleging taking part in what prosecutors say could be the largest bank heist in history. $45 million robbery that did not involve a single weapon. took just hours to pull it all off. according to the fed thieves
12:15pm
hacked into a database, prepaid debit cards, eliminated withdrawal limits and then loaded the data on to the magnet ic strips, and then then thieves in dozens of countries went to atm after atm and withdraw as much money also they could care. have toes in manhattan walked down broadway and hit every single bank along the way. with us now is partner and co-chair of cybersecurity at venable llp, jamie barnett, also former chief of the sec's oakland -- homeland security division. it's astonishing, 26,000 transactions in two operations over a matter of hours. in new york alone, they hit 30:00 a.m. machines in ten hours. are you surprised at the sophistication of this?
12:16pm
>> absolutely. i think everybody would be surprised by it or it would have been anticipated. while it was carried off in a very concise and well-orchestrated plan, it reads like a detective novel or oceans 11 movie. the more alarming part of it is that it actually played out over several months of planning with the actions done in december and then again in february, and so it raises a new bar of concern with regard to what cybercriminals internationally can do. >> greg: i want to put on the screen how they did it in bullet point form. there's two red flags there they hacked into the credit card processing companies, two of them. eliminated withdrawal limits, created access codes. encoded stolen data on magnetic strip cards and then had the cash crews make 36,000 withdrawals, but the two things that jumped out at you are, hacking in to these processing card companies.
12:17pm
are they just too vulnerable? >> well, i would say that our financial industries all pay attention to cybersecurity but there are vulnerabilities across the board. eave one of these companies has a great ceo, a chief information security officer, a fire wall, antivirus, but by social engineering and a number of other ways to get malware and they can get inside. so the think you can be assured of the executive suites are asking what kind of pattern wreck nick -- recognition can we putty. >> do you think banks need to abandon the magnet tech strip cards in favor of built-in chips which are really hard tole steal? >> you're exactly right. the industry is in that type of transition now, which what we call mobile payment. it's already happening.
12:18pm
you can pay for a lot of things with your mobile phone right now your smart phone, and those type of things are more security because there's end to end encryption. so as we move into the world of mobile payments we may see the mag card strips start to recede and more security come in. we always have to be, i guess, vigilant. >> no individuals lost money because they stole from funds held by banks that back up the prepaid credit cards that in the end that may get passed on to consumers. thanks for being with us, good to see you. >> thanks, greg. >> greg: britain's prince harry taking part in a couple of solemn events on the second day of this trip to the united states. making stops at arlington national cemetery and the military medical center, walter reed. we're live in washington with your recap.
12:19pm
plus, we'll explain why one u.s. astronaut tweeted he is suddenly very busy and may need to make an emergency spacewalk. still ahead on "studio b." hoo-hoo hoo. sir... i'll get it together i promise... heeheehee. jimmy: ronny, how happy are folks who save hundreds of dollars switching to geico? ronny:i'd say happier than the pillsbury doughboy on his way to a baking convention. get happy. get geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more.
12:20pm
12:21pm
12:22pm
welcome back. britain's prince harry salutedded his american comrades in arms, visiting wounded veterans at walter reed national military center. the prince, who returned from serving in afghanistan as a helicopter copilot gunner, also paid a special tribute to american service members who died on the field of battle. jonathan hunt is here now with more. jonathan, his image has taken a few hits. is this an attempt to rehab the image?
12:23pm
>> yeah, that's absolutely -- well, remember, it was less than a year ago prince harry was cavorting naked in vegas so no coincidence he has come back to the united states to start this rehab of his reputation, and this tour is all about paying tribute to those who have served, been wounded, and died in the wars in afghanistan and iraq, and yesterday, of course, at the capitol, he also toured a landmind clearance exhibition. landmine clearance, of course, is one of his mother's most dearly loved causes. listen. >> my mother, who believed passionately in this cause, would be so proud of my association with halo, and in her special way, she adopted it as her own. she would join me along with you other, i'm sure in praising halo for the amazing work they have done in the past quarter century and hoping one day, soon, it's
12:24pm
humanitarian work will be done. >> prince harry's serious work will continue in colorado over the weekend with wounded warriors and is then going to tour the jersey shore to look how the region is recovering. >> to you get the sense he is making a very good impression? >> seems to be making a good impression on certain people in particular. he was veil well-received by first lady michelle obama where he went for tea, and during his tour of the capitol yesterday, a whole crowd of women apparently liked the halls, snapping away with their cell phones and iphones and the like. even crusty old senator mccain seemed quite impressed. listen. >> frankly, find him very aattractive young man. >> to be a very attractive young man. in fairness, senator mccain said he found him to be very serious, and a trip for you,
12:25pm
greg, he's going to -- you're going to talk to chris wallace. he hocked to him yesterday. >> greg: cavorting naked in vegas. that seems normal to me. >> i don't want to get into your private life. >> greg: all right, jonathan, thanks. crew membered a board the international space station may need to make an emergency space walk to repair a coolant leak. if you look closely you can see what agency officials say are faint specks of ammonia drifting away from the station. officials say the problem is not life-threatening, at the very worst will force engineers to bypass the leaky coil. this is apparently an ongoing issue there. crew members worked to fix a leak in the same part of the cooling system just last november. the suspect in the cleveland kidnapping case is reportedly opening up to investigators what he is telling the cops.
12:26pm
as we learn that one of his alleged victims may need reconstructive surgery for her face. that's next. ♪ [ femalannouncer ] from more efficient payments. ♪ to more efficient pick-ups. ♪ wireless is limitless.
12:27pm
12:28pm
12:29pm
[ female announcer ] from meeting customer needs... to meeting patient needs... ♪ to wireless is mitless.s... >> greg: this is "studio b." the suspect in the cleveland kidnappings case is sorry only that he got caught. that from police sources on what ariel castro told interrogators
12:30pm
after his arrest. according to cleveland's wkyc television the suspect was cocky during questioning and told investigators he is cold-blooded addicted to sex and unable to control his impulses. he put three women captives through a decade-long hell and prosecutors are considering going after the death penalty against him because they say he violently forced one of his victims to abort at least five babies. the third victim has just been released from the hospital and fors are saying that michelle knight is now in pretty good spirits. she was reportedly undergoing treatment for a psychological traumatic. her grandmother told a tv station in cleveland that knight may have to have reconstructive surgery for her face. she says her captor beat her so badly she lost hearing in one ear. last night a total stranger organized a balloon release in a tribute to let her know that people are thinking about her.
12:31pm
what is the latest on the third victim, michelle knight? >> well, she most certainly may have the most difficult road to recovery. she was kidnapped first in august of 2002. it sounds as if she suffered repeated beatings she miscared five times because she was starved and punched in the stomach. and she was released at the hospital, and a crowd gathered around the house of gina dejesus. as far was we know michelle has not gone there, and what is also interesting here is that apparently michelle has not seen or spoken with any of her family members since she was rescued from the house behind us on monday evening. so, it's not clear where she is at this hour but we do know that the fbi has a special assistance, providing special victims assistance to all three victims and presumably to michelle as well who suffered tremendously over more than a decade of abuse, according to
12:32pm
investigators, greg, and is now, as you mentioned, out of the hospital. >> greg: has the search at that home finished up now or still ongoing? >> we heard a couple of times that fbi may have finished its search of castro's home but they're back on the scene today. that white truck on the right side of the street belongs to the fbi's evidence response team. young see police officers there, and to the left of it there are some workers in front of the house and in the neighboring homes. police broke downs' doors and windows as part of the search of the property, and apparently now some crews are putting wood, lumber, back in place over the doors and on the neighboring homes. we know the fbi's evidence response team and local police k-9 teams were on scene on wednesday with shovels, checking inside vacant homes next door and back yards as well. what we don't know is what they may have recovered and we don't
12:33pm
know why they've come back today but clearly this investigation is far over. greg greg rick, thanks. this case is raising lots of legal questions. joining me is reb wreck rose -- rebecca. ohio revised the murder statue, and here it is. very straightforward, aggravate murder: no person shall purposely cause the death of another or the unlawful termination of another's pregnancy while committing kidnapping. any reason why prosecutors can't go after the death penalty? >> i think they're go to. from what i have heard and what the evidence i have listened to i made some phone calls. seems like the prosecutors are just developing everything to go after aggravate murder. they call that aggravated murder in ohio, which is capital
12:34pm
murder, what jodi arias is facing now. and they're looking to do it on the five counts if the five pregnancies can be confirmed by the young girl michelle, who jest left the hospital. >> breaking news. jay carney, talking about the irs targeting conservative groups. >> fully suspect the investigation to be sure row -- to be thorough and for corrections to be made in a case like this, and i believe the irs has addressed that, and has taken some action, and there's an investigation ongoing, but certainly does seem to be, based on what we have seen to be inappropriate action that we would want to see thoroughly investigated. >> the president was so critical of these groups in 2010 and 2012, isn't it natural for the
12:35pm
public to think that these things are politically motivated? >> i think, first of owl, two things need to be noted, which is irs is an independent enforcement agency. the -- which i believe, is a understand it, contains only two political appointees within it. the individual who was running the irs at the time was actually an appointee from the previous administration. but separate from that, there is no question that if this activity took place, it's inappropriate and there needs to be action taken and the president would expect it be thoroughly investigated and actions would be taken. >> on the benghazi and with all do credit to my colleague on the right, we now have e-mails showing the state department pushed back against talking point language from the cia and expressed concern how some of the information would be used politically in congress. said the white house only made stylistic changes here, but
12:36pm
these were not stylistic changes. these were content changes. so, again, what role did the white house play, not just in making but in directing changes? >> well, thank you for that question. the way to look at this is to start from that week and understand that in the wake of the attacks in benghazi, an effort was underway to fine out what happened, who is responsible. in response to a request from the house permanent select committee on intelligence, to the cia -- the cia began a process of developing points that could be used in public by members of congress, by members of the committee. and that process, as is always the case, again, led by the cia, involved input from a variety of agencies with an interest in or stake in the process, and that would include obviously the state department since it was a
12:37pm
state department facility that was attacked, and an ambassador who was killed, as well as three others. the nsf, the fbi, the lead investigating authority, and other entities. the cia, in this case deputy director of the cia, took that process and issued a set of talking points on that saturday morning, and those talking points were disseminated. this is all in response to requests from congress. and the only edit made by the white house or the state department to those talking points generated by the cia was a change from referring to the facility that was attacked in benghazi from consulate -- because it was not a consulate -- to diplomatic post. i their i referred to it a diplomatic facility. but diplomatic post. the point being it was a matter of nonsubstantive factual correction. but there was a process leading
12:38pm
up to that which involved input from a lot of agencies as is always the case in a situation like this and is always appropriate, and the effort is always to in that circumstance, and with an ongoing investigation and a lot of information, some accurate, some not, about what had happened and who was responsible, to provide information for members of congress and others in the administration, for example, who might speak publicly about it, that was based on only what the intelligence committee could say for sure it thought it knew. and that is what was generated by intelligence community, by the cia. >> this information that was information that the cia obviously knows about prior attacks, and warnings about those. does the president think it was appropriate to keep that information away simply bus of how congress might view it? >> well, first of all, the
12:39pm
central intelligence agency was the agency that made changes to the talking points and then produced the talking points, first of all. second of all, the overriding concern of everyone involved is to make sure that we're not giving to those who speak in public about these issues, information that is -- cannot be confirmed, speculation about who was responsible, other things like was that may or may not be relevant to what we ultimately learn about what happened and. why all of that information, bill the way, was and remains part of the investigation. it's information that provided to congress and to others looking into this matter last fall and throughout the squirt into this year, and that investigation continues. but on the substantive issues of what happened in benghazi and at that time with the intelligence community thought it knew, that was reflected in the talking
12:40pm
points that were used, again, that weekend by ambassador rice and by others, including members of congress, and i think if you look at the information that has been reported, you can see that evolution and it was -- the talking points were focused on what we knew and not speculation about what may or may not have been responsible or related. also say that all of this information was provided months ago to members of congress. a fact we made clear to all of you at the time. during the confirm nation process for john ben unanimous as direct -- brennan as director for the cia there, was request for more information, including e-mails, around the deliberating process involved in producing these talking points, and this administration took the rare extraordinary member of providing those e-mails to the members of the appropriate committee as well as leadership members and staff in congress,
12:41pm
and that information was available, again in late february, to members of congress, and through march, and once that information was reviewed, in the case of the senate, senate republicans, a number of woman went on record who say now i feel like i know what i need to know. then allowed the process for the confirmation of john brennan to go forward and he was confirmed in march. >> e-mails provided in a -- >> i think the standard procedure for administrations of both parties going back decades that internal deliberations are generally protected information that is not something that is regularly shared with congress, and that's because to allow for a deliberative process in the executive branch, in this case to answer just these concerns that members of congress had, particularly republican members. that step was taken and provided, and they were able to
12:42pm
review all of these e-mails, which they have now leaked to reporters, but they were able to review the e-mails as long as they wanted, take extensive notes, and again, once the process was completed, the confirmation of john brennan went forward and senators told us they had the information they needed about that aspect of the benghazi incident, and it's only now, for west virginia what i think is, again, -- for what i think is, again reflective of ongoing attempts to politicize the tragedy that took four american lives. we're know seeing it resurface together with sort of political assertions by republicans that ignore the basic facts here. there was an attack on our facility in benghazi. the intelligence community provided the information that it
12:43pm
felt comfortable providing for public dissemination to the public, members of congress and administration. as we learned more about what happened, we provided it. that who is everybody has received the information that it has throughout this process. from the -- one of the things that is interesting about the points is that from the very beginning there was included in the points the statement about demonstrations taking place outside of the building and the facility in benghazi. that is what the assessment, the consensus of the intelligence community was that was spontaneous attacks launched against the facility. and when we found out that was not true, we made that clear, and that was going back -- if you remember when we had this discussion in the fall, that was the point that republicans are focusing on, and yet it's clear from what you see in these documents that was the assessment made by the intelligence community, and it's
12:44pm
also clear from every -- as to the revolution of what public officials said about what we knew, that as we got more con treat information and information that we felt confident about, we provided it to the press, the congress, and the public. >> the substance of the e-mails have very specific exchanges between state department official and officials here at the white house. and state department official raises concerns about providing talking points that would include a mention of al qaeda because of a concern that congress would use that against the state department and the -- >> i think that's -- you need to -- the state department said this spokesman's office raised two primary concerns about the talking points. the points went further in assigning responsibility, then preliminary assessments suggested and there was concern about preserving the integrity of the investigation.
12:45pm
that concern was expressed in other quarters, not just the state department. >> concern about giving members of congress something to use against the state department. >> well, again, this was a process where there was an effort underway, an enter agency process, to develop information that could be delivered by government officials, both congressional andded a administration officials, before the what we knew and not going beyond what we knew. so, the assertions that -- >> that's -- the language of the e-mail is clear me and response is clear. no matter who provided the talking points in the en, it certainly seems clear that there was an influence by the white house on the state department on the cia talking points. >> i think you're -- the white house, as i said, made one mine nor change to the talking points
12:46pm
drafted by and produced by the cia. and even prior to that made very view -- had very few inputs on it. the other discussions that went on prior to this in an enter agency process, concerned a variety of agencies who had a stake in this issue, both the fbi, because it was investigating, thecry, obviously, and other intelligence agencies, and the state department because an ambassador had been killed and a diplomatic facility attacked. i think the concerns is these points not provide informing that was speculative in terms of whether it was relevant to what happened. could not be known at that time was the restitution of issues about warnings, was -- the discussion about -- the republican, again in this ongoing effort that began hours after the attack when mitt romney put out a press release
12:47pm
to try to take political advantage out of these deaths -- out of the attack in benghazi, and in a move that was maligned even by members of his own party, and from that day forward a there has been this effort to politicize it. and if you look at the issue here, the efforts to o'hill size were about, were we trying to play down the fact that was an act of terror and an attack on the embassy? and the problem with -- has always been with that assertion is it's completely hollow because the president himself said this was an act of terror and talk about it in the context of september 11, 2001. he talked -- and then we had other officials of the administration refer to this as a terrorist attack. susan rice, when she went on the sunday shows, using the very talking points we're discussing now, talk about the possibility that we knew that -- we believed based on the intelligence that
12:48pm
extremists were involved. and there were suspicions about what affiliations those extremists might have, but there was not hard, concrete evidence, and so ambassador rice, in those shows, talked about the possibility that al qaeda might be involved. or other al qaeda affiliates might be involved, or nonal qaeda ya, libyan extremeis, which demonstrates there was no effort to play that down. it was a reflection of we did not -- the intelligence community did not and the others in the administration did not jump to conclusions about who was responsible before we had an investigation to find out the facts. >> western debt how congress would react a factor in what went into the talking points in. >> if you look at the development hoff the talking points, the answer to that is, no, because the talking points reflect the intelligence community's assessment of what happened and all the other issues about who was
12:49pm
responsible, what specific organizations may have participated, what information was available, or threats were known about the situation in libya, nor benghazi specifically. all of that was part of an investigation and was, begin, provided to congress and, as we learned more to the public, by the administration. april? >> didn't you say this is a minor change? a minor change in -- the wording. why such a big deal today with this background off the record. the same -- >> it wasn't off the record, and that was in a running -- but it's a big deal because republicans have chosen to politicize this, to provide -- leak this information to property reporters, information we provided months ago to republican lawmakers and the
12:50pm
relevant committees and republican leadership and democratic and there's an ongoing effort to make something political out of this. the problem is it's never been clear what it is they think they're accusing the administration of doing. when it comes to who was responsible, we we are open about what we knew what we thought we knew, what we did for a fact know, and the fact that's was an ongoing investigation and we would certainly learn more that would change our view of what happened in benghazi. >> it seems like there's been fuel added to the fire if this is such a minor issue, why not just tell the press, instead over -- of having the background and not be such a minor issue. >> i think i -- i'm here right now to take your questions about this issue, and we have background briefings periodically, and 14 news organizations were repped and that's something the
12:51pm
administration does regularly in both parties, and as i said at the top this is not a replacement for this briefing and that's why i'm take your questions. >> how too you go from a conversation happening between various administration officials, very area is officials, on september 14th, and in the e-mail and that e-mail exchange there's a discussion about a group -- al sharia, and the references to the group are removed from the conversation and don't make they're way into a talking point that is not a stylistic edit. that is major dramatic change -- >> i appreciate the question and the opportunity again to make clear that the cia produced talking points that were a result of an enter agency process on the morning -- that sad morning, and to that -- >> when you say -- >> let me finish this.
12:52pm
and from that -- >> and from pressure from other parties that were involved. >> i would point you to the numerous statements by the top official with the cia. making clear they wrote the talking points, they believed those talking points represented what they knew to the best of their knowledge at that time and did not clue things that were not concrete lie sure of. sharia, is an example. there was an initial claim of responsibility with that group and a lot of people rushed out and said this group is responsible. then that group withdraw the claim of responsibility. now either is dispositive. so what we knew was not concrete through for sure that group was responsible at that time. but we knew that extremists were participates and -- participants -- jimmy, if i could -- the idea that saying
12:53pm
extremists is hiding the ball. does anybody in this room not understand that extremists in libya means the kind of people who would attack a u.s. diplomatic facility? >> if you go back to what susan rice was talking about during those talk shows, she may have left open the possibility publish but this is an all together different thing. >> on the sunday shows she talk about al sharia ask they may be responsible or al qaeda could be responsible. what she did not say is that we know for a fact they're responsible and that's why in the basic talking points -- this is not about the facts of the investigation or all of the information provided to congress in countless hearings, countless pieces of information and documents provided, 25,000 pains of document. that's were the talking points
12:54pm
for what public officials, beginning with members of congress -- that's what they were developed for and also provided to ambassador rice, and then she spoke beyond that based on what could be true as opposed to what we knew to be true. >> once and for all, you are still comfortable -- >> you promise once and for all? >> well-maybe not. but you are comfortable with the way you characterize this back in november. this was a single adjustment. yes, it may have been the white house that made a single adjustment, and perhaps it was the cia that drafted the talking points but that is glossing over the fact you had all these other parties involved. these were not stylistic edits. this is a very -- very much a content-driven change. >> let me just make clear. i do stand by that when we were talking about the talking points that were produced by the cia and provided to members of congress on the intelligence committee in the house, as well as folks in the administration,
12:55pm
that that document was -- there was a suggested ed, from the white house to make it factual, the calling of the building a consulate, because it was not a consulate to diplomatic post or facility. i can't remember which. prior to that there had been a lot of discussion and iteration -- it ative process where the various issues were discussed about what could be or should be said publicly what we knee and what we're speculating about, and and that process involved a whole bunch of agencies, and it is also the case that in that process the white house involvement in the talking opinions was very limited and knopp substantive. the issues you mentioned had to do with limiting the talking points to what we knew as opposed to speculation about what may or may not have been in the end relevant to what happened in benghazi. >> jay, you told us that the only changes that were made were
12:56pm
styleiic. is it a stylistic change to take out all rev reps to previous terror threats in benghazi. >> i appreciate the question again, and i think what i was referring to was the talking points that the cia drafted, and sent around, to which one change was made, and then i accept that stylistic may not precisely describe a change of one ward to another, but -- one word to another -- >> these were extensive changes after they were written by the cia. these were concerns raided by the state department, the white house directed the interagency process to use in making these talking points. an original version included references to al qaeda, references to islam, the original cia version included extensive discussion of the previous terror attacks in benghazi. those were taken out of the cia wrote it initial draft. >> then the cia wrote another draft --
12:57pm
>> based on input from the state department. >> here's what i have been saying -- >> do you deny that? no i'm answered this self times, and there was an enter agency process, which is always the case because a lot of agencies have a stake in a matter like this, the investigative agency, the cia, intelligence agencies, the state department, the national security staff, and everybody provided information and comment, and then on saturday morning the cia said we're going to take a crack at forecasting these points based on what we know. and the things you're talking about, again, don't go to the fundamental issue here, which was, what would -- could be said concretely about what the intelligence community knew to be true. not that some people thought thought it was al-sharia or other extremists. there was also the belief from the beginning by snell generals
12:58pm
community that there had been protests out of which the attack occurred. protests in response to the demonstrations that were in cairo at our embassy that were in sponges to that video -- in response that video. that turned out not to be the case but demonstrates the fluidity of the information, and it continues
12:59pm
-- widely regarded figures in
1:00pm
national security in washington, former chairman of the joint chiefs, admiral mullen, and ambassador, tom pickerring, nonpartisan, serving both parties. they conducted an extensive review of this -- >> welcome, you're watching something very unusual. we're going to be sticking with this. the white house is now backtracking trying to explain an abc news report that says shortly after the benghazi attacks, it had changed its talking points no fewer than 12 times, omitting reverends to a cia warning at the time of an al qaeda threat. what made this difference from fox reporting on this is that now everybody is reporting on this, and giving the press secretary of the united states a lot heat and questioning on this now. back to this. >> raises the objections to the fact the cia had warned bat